The Decider: What is more important in a political candidate, policies or character?

My gut would be to go with character. But when you see a candidate whose policies make you wince, it's hard to give much support in return.

I'm watching the presidential nomination battles with great interest. You've got your typical mix of front-runners who get all the attention and fringe candidates who will do anything to get noticed, which only pushes them further into the fringe.

So far I'm liking Giuliani, a pro-choice hawk, for the Republicans. But none of the Democrats have impressed me. Hillary is the only one who wants to win the War on Terrorism by staying on the offense. Hell, she's one of the few Democrats who acknowledges that there is a War on Terrorism.

But, like a lot of other people, I have trouble trusting her. She's a political hack who seems to twist herself into contortions to be everything to everyone. I get the feeling that she only supports the War in Iraq because she originally voted for it, and now she doesn't want to appear to be a flip-flopper. She lacks credibility.

Obama, on the other hand, seems genuine. He's likeable, he's got charisma, and he seems to believe in what he's saying. Unfortunately, I disagree with much of what he's saying. He talks as if the problem with terrorism is a legal issue, not a national security one. He's more worried about popularity than victory.

So the choice on the Democratic side is someone with good character and bad policies, or someone with good stated policies and no apparent character.

But don't worry, I'm sure the Republicans will do something to piss me off -- like nominate Mitt Romney.